A referendum for nothing

Guillemind

On the 12th of June 2008, the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%. The 2nd of October 2009, it will have to pronounce itself anew on this same text without a single comma having been changed, a text which itself is only a deliberately confused rewording of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe rejected by the French and Dutch voters in 2005. Thus, whatever the result, the second Irish referendum can only be one more illustration of the total loss of legitimacy of the European institutions.

2005, 2008, 2009… The referenda follow each other, the name of the text changes, the content remains the same (1); this relentlessness reveals the nature of the project: the European Union does not content itself with questioning the sovereignty of the European peoples to realize its ambition, it is the loss of sovereignty of these same peoples which constitutes its project. Can one still call a referendum what is in the end only the search for a unique answer validating a process of negotiation between the Irish government and the European Council?

It is appropriate first of all to recall the reception of the Irish "no" in 2008 (2). Before even the announcement of the result, the polls forecasting the victory of the "no" had set off reactions listening to which it was clear that the Lisbon Treaty had to be adopted at all costs. A few days before the referendum, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard Kouchner, to only quote him, anticipated "[that in the case of a negative vote], one would have to continue, unrelentingly, to go very fast, to continue with the priorities that we have defined and attempt to convince the Irish who have already revoted once concerning in fact the Nice Treaty, to consider this treaty again (3)."

After the result, the by then well-polished machinery of negation of the people's judgement functioned at full throttle; journalists and politicians relativized in chorus the bearing of the "no", for, as the French journalist Jean Daniel said, "One country of 4 or 5 million inhabitants like Irelandcannot take hostage nations uniting 490 million citizens (4)". National sovereignty is an obsolete notion for the authorized commentators. As soon as the day following the referendum, José Manuel Barroso proclaimed that "The Treaty is not dead. The Treaty is alive, and we will try to work to find a solution (5)." The Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk was one of the most frank: "The referendum results in Ireland do not disqualify the Treaty completely. We will continue seeking ways to bring it to life. Regardless of the referendum results I think we can be moderately optimistic about the EU finding a way to put it in force (6)". In a permanent antidemocratic soliloquy, the pro-European zealots trampled the sovereignty of the Irish people underfoot; for them the European Union is, lo and behold, already sovereign.

The Irish Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, showed very rapidly that he did not intend to support the decision of his people; on the contrary, he minimized its weight by declaring: "We must take time to digest what has happened, to understand why it did, to consult broadly amongst ourselves and with our partners (7)". This deliciously diplomatic language showed that it was now a question of finding a means to get round the Irish "no". It has never been seriously considered to take account of the popular verdict. Such an attitude on the part of a democratically elected leader allows a profound uncertainty to persist concerning the true nature of the role of European elites: though they do protest this, they have ceased to represent their people to put themselves at the service of a supranational policy-making with which it is impossible to compromise and of which they are in charge of applying locally the decisions. Such duplicity leads democracy to its ruin.

The chronology of the facts of the year elapsed since the Irish "no" of 2008 allows one to fully account for the refusal to adopt the popular will. After having spent the month of June in comments intended to either infantilize the Irish voters (8) or make them feel guilty, Brian Cowen was summoned before the European Council, as a bad pupil to the headmaster's office, to account for his failure. The Council then took over the process of ratification. It was impossible to change the text of the treaty without this new version being reexamined by all the states of the EU. Thus the method decided upon was that of an adjunction to the Treaty in the form of an additional protocol bearing on the questions of neutrality, of legislation concerning abortion and on the control of taxation, supposed focusing points of discontent during the first ballot. It will always be easier to abolish this protocol than to amend the whole of the Constitutional Treaty. Thereby does one think it skillful to "guarantee" the Irish a right they already have, that of deciding their own legislation. Enjoining the Irish to forfeit their sovereign power in exchange for simple guarantees on particular questions, the European Council seems to consider that one can prefer to give up one's watch against the promise of always being able to ask the time...

If the European Union was a democratic system --which it never has been and will never be--, it would be unthinkable to require a sovereign people to vote again even though it has just delivered its verdict. It would not be any more conceivable to deprive the other peoples of speech. But the peoples of Europe live only in a parody of democracy; the verdict of the ballot boxes, only legitimate poll of public opinion, has ceased to be politically constraining. One must take account of this with the greatest seriousness and take measure of what the European leaders are ready to do for their project to succeed.

The French and Dutch "no" to the European Constitution have been purely and simply declared null and void; the only people who, thanks to the constitution of its country, has had the occasion to pronounce itself on the Lisbon Treaty sees itself being refused the right to say "no". This refusal is to be understood in the strict sense; indeed, as José Luis Zapatero has said: "It is not possible for Ireland, with all due respect to its democratic choice, be able to stop such a necessary project (9)." Not only the neoliberal measures contained in the Lisbon Treaty, such as that of free and undistorted competition, are not amendable, but they are the very bedrock of the European project, and this last is not negotiable. Thus one could not hope without contradiction of reforming from the inside what constitutes the very nature of the "European idea". Either it is accepted, either it is imposed. But where is democracy hidden in such practices?

The peoples see themselves systematically deprived of a public debate worthy of the name regarding the European Union. When the flagrantly pro-European Union bias of the media (10) and the enraptured loyalty of the political parties to the European project lets emerge a public disavowal, this last is denied, got round. All the parties who have access to the media are favorable to the European construction --it is precisely for this reason that they have access to the media-- whereas the rates of abstention in the European elections and the doubts as regards the democratic virtues of the European Union have never been as strong. All the great private powers (multinationals, banks, etc.) are favorable to the European construction, no doubt are they impatient that "social Europe (11)" see the light of day… Political parties, the media and private wealth converge naturally towards Euro-liberalism, each finding (or hoping to find) in the decrepitude of the nation states an advantage and the means of increasing their power at the cost of the political and social rights of the citizens.

To get an idea of the impunity and of the preferential treatment which the European Union benefits from, imagine what would be the reaction of the "international community" and of the Western media if the government of Russia, Iran or Venezuela declared null and void or ignored the result of a referendum… Yet, it's Europe which the media and the political parties are attempting to cover up for with massive publicity stunts and "pedagogy" --a politics marketing term to designate propaganda-- the growing democratic deficit and totalitarian leaning of the European Union. The less we'll truly be in a democracy, the more one will have to claim the opposite. The matter at hand here is to compensate for the disappearance of the actual entity by massive repetition of the word.

Whatever may be the result of the referendum of the 2nd of October, it will be taken in charge by the usual devices of media reception. If the "yes" wins, the atmosphere will be one given to relieved approval, and if the Irish again vote "no", it will once again be a question of how to "get Europe out of this impasse". It will matter above all else that the opportunity of the European construction not be brought into question. It is this absence of real political choice, characteristic of the post-democratic society to which an "elite of technicians" destines its peoples, that one perceives behind these remarks by the French ex-State Secretary for European Affairs Jean Pierre Jouyet:

"I sincerely believe that the referendum is not the right formula to adopt at the national level international treaties and regulations. Hence indeed, if other referenda [concerning the Treaty of Lisbon] had been organized, it is probable that certain of them would also have seen the "no" win. But it is not up to the people to decide these very complex questions (12)."


Laurent Dauré and Dominique Guillemin

Translated from the French by Aubrey Wanliss-Orlebar

www.u-p-r.fr



Notes :

(1) See our article "Lisbon treaty: EU democratic process in question", put online February 17, 2008: www.spectrezine.org/europe/Lisbon.hie.

(2) See our article "L’introuvable souveraineté de l’Union européenne", put online July 3, 2008: www.observatoiredeleurope.com/L-introuvable-souverainete-de-l-Union-europeenne_a970.html.

(3) Bernard Kouchner, interview with Jean-Michel Aphathie, RTL, June 9, 2008.

(4) Jean Daniel, "Naufrage d’une ambition", Le Nouvel Observateur, June 19-25 weekly issue, 2008.

(5) José Manuel Barroso, press conference, June 13, 2008, quoted by Arnaud Vaulerin, "La petite Irlande secoue l’Europe", Libération, June 14-15, 2008.

(6) Donald Tusk, June 13, 2008, Le Nouvel Observateur, June 19-25 weekly issue, 2008.

(7) Brian Cowen, quoted by Henri de Bresson and Philippe Richard, "La mise en œuvre du traité de Lisbonne est bloquée", Le Monde, June 15-16, 2008.

(8) See the article by Denis Perais and Mathias Reymond, "Traité de Lisbonne : ces Irlandais d’où vient tout le mal", put online June 23, 2008: www.acrimed.org/article2922.html.

(9) José Luis Zapatero, quoted by Alain Barluet, "Les vingt-sept se donnent quatre mois de réflexion", Le Figaro, June 20, 2008.

(10) See the book by Henri Maler and Antoine Schwartz (for Acrimed), Médias en campagne : retours sur le référendum de 2005, Syllepse, 2005.

(11)See the book by François Denord and Antoine Schwartz, L’Europe sociale n’aura pas lieu, Raisons d'Agir, 2009.

(12) Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Une présidence de crise : entretiens avec Sophie Coignard, Albin Michel, 2009.

sceptre

Charter. Read. Please. Easy to find. Cheers.